LAURIE JOHNSON CONSULTING CCSF Lifelines Council Interdependency Study Urban Planning Risk Management Disaster Recovery The Final Stretch Lifelines Council Meeting #11 April 4, 2013 (Source: JIIRC-UBC)
Interdependency Study Goals (Near-term 2 5 years) Build a workable understanding of system interdependencies, and consequences of existing conditions,to help expedite response and restoration planning among agencies Identify key assets and restoration priorities/schemes to prioritize post-disaster restoration and reconstruction activities for the city, and ultimately the region Develop a collective set of lifelines performance expectations under current conditions
Interdependency Study Progress to Date and Next Steps Design study, select scenario, and develop discussion guide (April October 2011) Pilot testing of scenario and finalize discussion guide (Nov 2011 Jan 2012) Infrastructure operator and panel discussions (January 2012 Spring 2013) Synthesize discussions into integrated scenario and interdependency insights; operator review and approval (late Spring 2013) Presentation to the Lifelines Council and other groups, as appropriate (Summer 2013)
Lifelines Council Interdependency Study Approach (modeled after Chang et al (Vancouver) and Porter et al (Southern California)) Earthquake Scenario Infrastructure Panel(s) by Sector Present scenario and lifeline damage inputs Summarize findings of prior panels or relevant studies Describe system construction Describe past seismic performance Describe expected performance for scenario Complete damage and restoration grid (by county) Discuss situational awareness Make mitigation recommendations Data synthesized into draft scenario Additional Rounds of Panel(s) or Group Workshop Review scenario and infrastructure panel results Revise damage and restoration assumptions Prioritize interdependencies Comprehensive Earthquake Scenario for CCSF Develop Action Agenda and Council s Year 3 Work Program
M7.9 San Andreas Earthquake Scenario affecting19-counties in Northern California (EERI, Charles A. Kircher et al. 2006)
Total Direct Economic Loss Direct Economic Building Loss due Ground Shaking/Failure (M7.9) County Loss Ratio Dollars in Billions Marin Sonoma Napa Solano Alameda $15.0 7.4% San Francisco 25.9% $33.8 San Mateo 24.6% $26.4 San Francisco Contra Costa Santa Clara 11.9% $28.4 Other Counties $18.4 2.7% All 19 Counties 9.0% $122 Fire - Plus 5% - 15% Lifelines - Plus 5% - 15% Total Loss: $150 billion San Mateo Economic Loss Density Loss [$M Ratio per sq.mi.] [%] Over 250 50 20 to 250 10 10 to 2050 55 to 10 10 12 to 5 5 0.2 1 to 2 1 Less than 0.2 1 0 10 20 miles Santa Cruz Alameda Santa Clara San Monterey Benito Kircher & Associates Consulting Engineers
Progress of Interdependency Interviews (April 2013) (Completed) Regional Roads Electricity Gas Water Wastewater Local Roads Telecom Municipal Transit and Rail Port and Airport Fuel Auxiliary Water (Scheduled or Yet to be Completed)
Roads (Regional + Local) Redundancy ensures regional functionality, but the level of service will be significantly impacted. Primary regional access routes from the south El Camino, 101, and 280. City road clearance focus first on access for emergency response, areas needing assistance (hospital, fire and police), then supply routes most likely starting from the south. Road clearance and repair could take a year. Full reconstruction would take longer.
System Restoration (Progress Report ; January 2013) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Electricity Gas Regional Water Local Roads Telecom
Lifeline Interdependencies in San Francisco (Progress Report ; April 2013) Sewer Roads (regional + local) Telecom Electric/ Power Water (regional + local, AWSS) Natural Gas Legend Color for level of service disruption Transit Fuel Line width for level of dependency
Critical Interactions among San Francisco Lifelines (Progress Report ; April 2013) (Yao et al 2005, based on Kameda, Nojima, 1992; Scawthorn 1993; and others) Functional disaster propagation, and cascading interactions, due to failure of interdependence among lifelines Roads (regional + local) and most operators Electricity and telecommunications, and most operators Collocation and restoration interaction, physical disaster propagation among lifeline systems Underground water failures impacting underground electricity and gas Roads (local) and buried infrastructures such as sewers General interaction, between internal components of a lifeline system Electrical substation failure Water turnout failures Loss of generator power
Study Insights/Issues (Progress Report ; April 2013) Resilience (Level of Service) standards vary considerably among systems, and so will likely restoration times Range of system conditions/restoration characteristics: older vs. newer, fixed vs. flexible, reliable vs. sensitive, smart vs. not-so-smart, complex and interrelated vs. independent Restoration priorities and communications/ decisions will come from varying management organizations/levels: national, state/region EOC, city of SF EOC, and system DOCs Common concerns about system restoration access, credentialing and basic services for personnel, mutual aid/resources, communications, temporary staging/equipment storage areas Critical choke points affecting city s resilience no local power generating source and limitations of generators/fuel, older buried and less smart distribution systems (e.g. gas, water, sewer)
Details on Next Steps Infrastructure operator and panel discussions: PG&E (electric and gas), Caltrans (regional roads), SFPUC (water), SFDPW (city roads and debris), Verizon, ATT and Comcast (telecom) SFPUC (wastewater), (power), and (auxiliary water) MUNI Port/airport operators Fuel operators Develop integrated scenario and interdependency insights (late Spring 2013) Operator review and approval (late Spring 2013) Presentation to the Lifelines Council and other groups, as appropriate (Summer 2013)